Navy to get F/A-18's?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Normong_Gruntham, Aug 1, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From the Times today.

    You may discuuss.

    Navy jet switch to save £10bn

    The Fighters would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising
    Michael Smith
    Published: 1 August 2010

    The Joint Strike Fighters, costing £100m each (HO/AFP/Getty Images) The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.

    It is expected to swap an order for 138 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for a version of a cheaper aircraft currently flown off US carriers, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

    The cost-saving move was considered at a meeting last weekend between Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and services chiefs to discuss cuts.

    “JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,†said a senior defence source. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate, and even if we continued with it we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.â€

    The JSF, built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s main American rival, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising. The aircraft were set to replace Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Navy.
  2. Seems like a good thing to me from the little i know about it. We need new aircraft. But do we need the all singing all dancing ones. Probably not. Spending does need to be reduced. And hopefully this is a way of doing it with some sense.
  3. Could be completely off the mark here. But wouldn't it be cheaper to navalise the typhoon ?
  4. Looking through the round window.... can we have the Twin Variant and cat and wires??? or will i need to go to Festive Road, and go with Mr Benn to the magic shop and see the shopkeeper..... if by magic the shopkeeper appeared , what do you want to be today Norm [​IMG]
  5. Hands to flying stations, can you chuck in some Intuders and Hawkeyes as well Norm????[​IMG]
  6. No that ideas been shotdown as being expensive and pointless multiple times. Sorry.

  7. You would have to buy some of the twins so the higher ups go be taken on sightseeing flights. There you are, another bonus from buying the F/A-18.

    You will need wires, but those Indian chaps are going to be flying their F/A-18's off a ski ramp thingy if they buy them.
  8. Slight problem Though Norm for you and the grown ups..... Their isnt anybody with a Scooby doo, in the FAA Today that can operate or teach guys to operate , the expertise that is required for day to day running of a STRIKE carriers flight deck with CATS/WIRES !!!!! .... Looks like a load of pilots, chockheads, badgers and FDOs etc will be going over the pond for a famil :lol: :lol: :
  9. Scouse - whisper it quietly, I think they already are...........
  10. Fair enough, It just seems more sensible to adapt a fighter we already have to be able to land and take off from carriers. Than to buy a whole new fleet of them IMO. But hey, what do I know ? ;)
  11. Well, we will have a lot to sell once we purchase these puppies... :D


    Of course shelling out $9 Billion, we may only be able to buy 3 and a loner.. 8O

    Getting expensive to fix..
  12. NoNoNo that would make sense. If the MOD did this we would end up with some that cost more than buyign the new fleet and could only take off on the third monday of every year.
  13. Fear not Danny,

    BAE and Rolls-Royce will be along shortly to give it the special treatment - not only will it be singing and dancing with British ingenuity that will have the cousins green with envy, it will come with extra costs that are all singing and dancing too!

    And to think that for a moment we might have spent all that money on F35 . . . it doesn't need to be all singing and dancing you know.

    In any case I hope we've learnt our lesson for a good while yet. Every time we do procurement with anyone else it ends up being a clusterfuck . . . with us walking away fingering that precious thrupenny bit whilst ruefully rubbing our bottom.
    Over 10 years ago when we were first looking at the replacement for FA2 SHAR, the US of A offered us free F-18s to replace the FA2. It was being part of the 'best buddy' deal: it included not only as many free F-18s as we could handle, but also training in USA for aircrew and ground crew - it seemed like a bonus deal to beat all deals. The downside was that the F-18 jets were second hand jets and would be relatively expensive to run (but there was no outlay in the first place so they would still have been cheap).
    We said 'no thanks'. Why? Because the Labour Government wanted to ensure jobs for the 'workers' ie. BAE amongst other UK military contractor [email protected], so we kissed it off.
    Instead, we've waited a decade until we've lost our Fixed wing Air Defence capability and then we spend a f*ckin' sh*tload of dosh on going 'joint' with USA on jets that are too expensive for us to run.
    Morons all round and it is really grippin' my sh*t!
  15. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Would there not be a lot of expense in buying out of the JSF contract?
  16. Fear not as well Hedgeporker the Septics have the job in hand :lol:
  17. Shamelessly pinched from ARRSE:

  18. Well, actually, I rather like the idea of a Rolls-Royce powered Hornet. :oops:

    The Phantom job may have been akin to having a permanently squeezed, aching and overly hot pair of nads due to being forced into undies that were too small, but as an eternal (albeit cynical) optimist I was hoping that we might be able to pull off another WAH-64 and claw something back.
  19. Apparently the Dutch have just cancelled their JSF order and the Israeli's have cut back theirs.

    I#m no aviator but 100M a pop for JSF is a boat load of cash and the FA 18 seems well proven...
  20. Trigger

    Carrier a/c are designed to cope with completely different stresses & strains than shore based a/c. The stresses of catapult launches and very short slams in to the deck for arrested lanings, whilst going to full power (in case of the need to bolt - ie take of again) are massive & a shore based a/c would have to be re-designed completely for carrier op. Undercarriage points would have to be massively beafed; a tail hook would need to be designed in & the internal structures would need to be strengthened. All this leads to increased weight and possible centre of balance problems as the weight isn't now where it was designed to be.

    Carrier a/c tend to be designed from scratch for carrier ops & then used ashore later, if necessary (Phanton, F18 etc). I might be wrong but I can't think of a single modern a/.c designed for shore ops that was succesfully coinverted for carrier aviaton except, of course for the .....Harrier (wich di not need to worry about cats & traps).

    Converting the Typhoon wouldbe next to impossible without a complete re-design at vast, vast expense.

    It would have been better with hindsight for us to have bought he F18F or the Rafale many years ago rather than developing the Typhoon for shore based use & going down the JSF route for the carrir but hey ho!

Share This Page